State of U.P. vs Ram Singh and State Public Services Tribunal

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—By means of this petition, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.1996, passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, in Claim Petition No. 56 of 1996, whereby said Tribunal has directed the petitioners to pay respondent No. 1 pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040, applicable to the Avar Varg Sahayak and, thereafter, pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660 for the period he has performed the work of Personal Assistant.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits filed on their behalf.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before State Public Services Tribunal in which he pleaded that there is a sanctioned post of Personal Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660, since 20th August 1990, but the claimant / respondent No. 1 was being paid only Rs. 40/- per day under Government Order dated 12.10.1995. He pleaded before the Tribunal that he is performing the duties like a regular employee and claimed his parity with one Dharmendra Joshi, who was working on the post of Upper Division Assistant.

It appears that respondent No. 1 was engaged on daily wages in the Planning Department and his services were terminated in the year 1992. He filed a Writ Petition No. 5203 of 1992 (S/B) before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court and after obtaining stay order continued to work. The said writ petition was later transferred to this Court and re-numbered as Writ Petition No. 418 of 2003 (S/B), which was disposed of vide order dated 22.02.2006, directing the present petitioners to decide representation of the claimant [petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5203 of 1992 (S/B) (New No. 418 of 2003 (S/B)] and permitted the petitioner (present respondent No. 1) to work on Class-III post. Meanwhile, the present petitioners filed their written statement before the Tribunal and pleaded that claimant (present respondent No. 1) engaged on daily wages on 20th August 1990 for a period of 120 days and, thereafter, his services were extended for a period of further 90 days. Thereafter, he worked under the interim order dated 04.08.1992 passed by the Allahabad High Court and remained on daily wages. It is also pleaded that Dharmendra Joshi with whom the parity was claimed by the claimant was also getting salary only under the interim orders of the High Court. The Tribunal after hearing the parties applying the principle of ''equal work equal pay'' allowed the claim petition and directed the respondents to pay the claimant pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 for the period he worked as Avar Varg Sahayak and, thereafter, pay scale of Rs. 1600- 2660 for the period he was performing duties of Vyaktik Sahayak.

Learned Counsel for the present petitioners argued that claimant/respondent No. 1 was a daily wage worker and as such not entitled to any pay scale. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 failed to show us any appointment letter by which he was appointed on any sanctioned post of Avar Varg Sahayak or that of Vyaktik Sahayak. It is not denied that he started his career as a daily wage worker and continued to work under the interim orders of Allahabad High Court. However, without there being any appointment on a particular post it cannot be said that he is entitled to a particular pay Department so farscale. He appears to have been engaged on daily wages as a Typist and at times worked as Typist and later work of Personal Assistant was taken from him in the Department, but nature of his engagement remained unaffected. Neither the claimant (present respondent No. 1) has been appointed on regular basis on any particular post nor his service has been regularized by the Department so far. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the Tribunal has committed grave error of law in directing the present petitioners to pay the claimant (present respondent No. 1) pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 applicable to Avar Varg Sahayak and, thereafter, pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660. The petitioner (present respondent No. 1) is entitled to the salary only under the terms of his engagement on daily wages.

For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 16.12.1996, passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, in Claim Petition No. 56 of 1996 is hereby quashed. However, no recovery of the salary, if any already paid to the claimant (present respondent No. 1) shall be made from him.

f